Republican 2012 Nomination Thread

[StrangeSox]

That's iffy...and while it's not the exact same, it IS similar...in either case, both are attempts of character assassination. In the end, if the women turn out to be liars with the past the right wing media is reporting on, then it wasn't the media that assassinated their character, they did it. Same goes for Cain/Liberal minded media.

 

That's not the point. These women could be saints or they could be awful people; that doesn't lessen the offense of sexually harassing them in any way. The attacks against them aren't addressing the claims, they are focusing on the (unknown) people, trying to deligitimize them by pointing out problems in their past. It's an awful and all-too-common way that victims of abuse are treated.

 

This is not at all similar to a reporter finding a story on a politician running for office.

 

Cain has to know this is part of the game, and let's not pretend these women weren't advised of the same. Come out against a public name and expect this...if it turns out to be untrue, sue them for defamation. However, if you come out against a public official with a spotty past -- rest assured it's coming out.

 

That doesn't make it right. That doesn't make it any less awful. And, again, the issue isn't whether the attempts at character assassination of these women are based on accurate claims, but the character assassination itself.

 

[StrangeSox]

I just don't understand how going one direction it's a character assassination, but going the other it's justified truth-telling. I get that where there's smoke, there's fire, but right now all we have is 4 anonymous women making claims of improper conduct/harassment, and one who has come out.

 

Actually, we have five women now. And two settled lawsuits.

 

The one that has come out has some serious credibility issues. Why is it so wrong to question that, especially given the timing and the involvement of a known sleaze-ball Hollywood attorney? And now the morning talk show circuit?

 

The point of victim character assassinations is to dismiss claims by making it seem like the person isn't credible. There's nothing wrong with not immediately buying these claims at face value. There's nothing wrong with pointing out that we don't really know what happened, and anyone immediately accusing Cain of being a proven adulterer and harasser is being a partisan idiot. That's not what's got me so annoyed about this whole episode.

Edited November 8, 2011 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

They can turn that volume up to 100%, doesn't matter if it turns out to be false. However, if what they're saying turns out to be true -- and I trust we will find out in time -- it's them that will end up looking dumb.

 

I remain skeptical that if we someone get incontrovertible proof of these claims, Rush will apologize profusely on his air and his credibility will be tarnished.

[Y2HH]

I remain skeptical that if we someone get incontrovertible proof of these claims, Rush will apologize profusely on his air and his credibility will be tarnished.

 

Rush is an idiot, who cares. The only people that listen to him are die hard neo cons that you have no chance in having a decent non-biased conversation with anyway. So let Rush be Rush.

 

Not the power trio from Canada, anyway...they rule.

[Y2HH]

Oh, and I formally apologize to anyone I offended. I know I said I don't care if I offended you (SS) or anyone else, but I actually do care. P

[StrangeSox]

Rush is an idiot, who cares. The only people that listen to him are die hard neo cons that you have no chance in having a decent non-biased conversation with anyway. So let Rush be Rush.

 

Not the power trio from Canada, anyway...they rule.

 

Just take a look at that Slate article I linked a few posts ago. It's not just Rush but also prominent politicians who are getting to the point of denying the existence of legitimate sexual harassment as a real thing. I picked Rush's name because it was the easiest example of the complete lack of any consequences that will happen if these allegations are proven to be true.

Edited November 8, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Y2HH]

Just take a look at that Slate article I linked a few posts ago. It's not just Rush but also prominent politicians who are getting to the point of denying the existence of legitimate sexual harassment as a real thing. I picked Rush's name because it was the easiest example of the complete lack of any consequences that will happen if these allegations are proven to be true.

 

I have faith that the truth will come out -- and when it does -- those prominent politicians will answer for it, trust me. The media will assuredly all on assault them on it.

 

And if they won't, the Internet surely will. In the end, the truth will come out, and in the end those that are guilty will pay, even if it means paying by muddying up their own names.

[StrangeSox]

The same liebral media who's just out to lynch any black who dares to think for himself.

 

My problem remains with the pervasiveness of the ideology revealed by the reactions to the accusers, not the specific individuals opining it.

[Balta1701]

I have faith that the truth will come out -- and when it does -- those prominent politicians will answer for it, trust me. The media will assuredly all on assault them on it.

 

And if they won't, the Internet surely will. In the end, the truth will come out, and in the end those that are guilty will pay, even if it means paying by muddying up their own names.

I have faith that powerful and wealthy people have more than enough means to muddy the waters enough to make sure that even when the truth is out, there is a large group of people who believe that the real truth is still yet to come by some unforeseen means.

[StrangeSox]

I have faith that powerful and wealthy people have more than enough means to muddy the waters enough to make sure that even when the truth is out, there is a large group of people who believe that the real truth is still yet to come by some unforeseen means.

 

And that it's not a real problem anyway because sexual harassment is just a lawyers' invention, exploited by greedy incompetent women with no sense of humor.

 

Let’s say that Cain has bungled away the nondisclosure agreements that the National Restaurant Association put away in the 1990s. The women in question come out and speak. At that point it’ll be their word against his. All those doubts about the very idea of sexual harassment settlements, all those doubts about whether this stuff can be trusted—that will come in handy.

[StrangeSox]

I only followed it via Sullivan's blogging, but his press conference seemed...interesting.

 

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/20...in-presser.html

[Balta1701]

I only followed it via Sullivan's blogging, but his press conference seemed...interesting.

 

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/20...in-presser.html

In the same press conference, he denied ever having met the named accuser (the one who a Chicago Radio host says spoke to him briefly a few weeks ago) and then also recanted that denial and said maybe he did know her.

 

Also, I want to change the Democratic thread to "The Democrat Machine of America."

[NorthSideSox72]

With the number of accusations coming forward, its awfully hard to write them all off to ulterior motives like money, politics, etc. I'd rather not make a guess, but as there won't be any court cases, that may be all we can do.

 

Fortunately, I never liked him as a candidate anyway, he is laughably in over his head, basically just a circus act. And he was going to tumble soon even without these revelations or whatever they are.

 

I do find it said though, the reactions in here of people on both sides of the aisle, either automatically (and, in my view, sickeningly) assuming the claimants are money-grubbers making up a story... or on the other hand, assuming that some claim of a decade-old encounter MUST be true, and virtually rooting for it to be so. I hope you aren't all like this in "real life".

 

Except mr genius of course, who played you all like a fiddle, which provided the best moments of the thread.

 

[StrangeSox]

I take issue with your egregious misrepresentation of the facts, sir.

 

I myself noted that mr. genius was engaged in a highly successful troll of Balta. He is, after all, my favorite poster in the sub-forum.

[Texsox]

I didn't see this anywhere so I thought I'd toss it in. Many women report when being attacked how small and powerless they feel. Which is understandable. A mention of a protector (boyfriend, husband) is intended to cause this larger than me person who is assaulting me to fear a physical reprisal and stop. It isn't intended as a "I'd love to have sex with you right here, but sorry, I have a boyfriend."

Of course now Jenks will be telling us that we have Penn State haters after $$$$$$$$ bringing down that program. Pretty suspicious that this comes out two weeks after Joe breaks the record.

[StrangeSox]

Cain's campaign accuses Josh Kraushaar of working for Politico and being Karen Kraushaar's son. Neither are true.

[EvilMonkey]

Not quite sure how to word this, but here goes. Several people on here getting pissy about the 'character assassination' of the women in regards to the Cain Incident(s). Just wondering what you would have him (or his proxys) DO? In a strictest he said/she said circumstance, that is about all he can do. Or should he just shut up and say nothing? Or just a simple 'they are wrong, I am innocent'? While I agree that sometimes it can go to an extreme, but is not the character of the accuser as important as the character of the person being accused? If someone IS getting paid for interviews, and is in bad financial shape, people deserve to know that, as it MAY be a basis for her allegations, or to exaggerate something that did happen. If someone has accused others if 'inappropriate conduct' a few times before, is that not also important in determining the makeup of the accuser's statements? I guess i just want to know what you would have him do?

[StrangeSox]

The problem is that many of these attacks on victims of abuse (and its certainly not new to these cases) often serve only to denigrate the accuser and don't actually call into question the veracity of their claims. It's an ad hominem. Now, obviously, if someone has a history of frivolous lawsuits, that's pertinent. Financial gain could be a motivation, but accusations from someone who is poor are no less reliable than from someone who is well-off (this is really an extension of the abusive power structure that leads to harassment or abuse in the first place). But that's not what we're seeing in the media pieces linked to in this thread--it's straight-up character assassination, serving only to bring up as many negative things about the accusers as possible in order to delegitimize their claims, no matter how unrelated the issues are.

 

A larger issue than that, however, is the dismissal of sexual harassment as a real thing as has been done by several politicians and media personas. All claims of sexual harassment are said to come from uptight, unfunny gold-digging women egged on by lawyers. It's deeply sexist.

[Texsox]

Not quite sure how to word this, but here goes. Several people on here getting pissy about the 'character assassination' of the women in regards to the Cain Incident(s). Just wondering what you would have him (or his proxys) DO? In a strictest he said/she said circumstance, that is about all he can do. Or should he just shut up and say nothing? Or just a simple 'they are wrong, I am innocent'? While I agree that sometimes it can go to an extreme, but is not the character of the accuser as important as the character of the person being accused? If someone IS getting paid for interviews, and is in bad financial shape, people deserve to know that, as it MAY be a basis for her allegations, or to exaggerate something that did happen. If someone has accused others if 'inappropriate conduct' a few times before, is that not also important in determining the makeup of the accuser's statements? I guess i just want to know what you would have him do?

 

I believe that should have been done by Cain and his attorneys back at the time of the settlement(S). We are not back at the he said / she said stage, we're at the stage where there is additional evidence in the form of a settlement(S). And in our society, a financial penalty is what we extract from wrongdoers. We don't chop off fingers or cane someone. Even in criminal procedures we extract a financial penalty. So anyone that points to the very tool we use as somehow leading to an accuser's motive seems wrong to me.

 

But you bring up a valid point and the reason that poor people are such perfect targets in our society. They do not have access to great legal counsel *and* people will discredit what they say based on their financial situation. If this was some 5th Avenue, wealthy person making the accusation, we wouldn['t be having this discussion. But since the accuser is of more modest means, she is open to this speculation.

[Texsox]

One other point, think about how many very wealthy men do not have to settle harrassment claims. I wonder why that is? Why are some guys such targets?

[jasonxctf]

Not quite sure how to word this, but here goes. Several people on here getting pissy about the 'character assassination' of the women in regards to the Cain Incident(s). Just wondering what you would have him (or his proxys) DO? In a strictest he said/she said circumstance, that is about all he can do. Or should he just shut up and say nothing? Or just a simple 'they are wrong, I am innocent'? While I agree that sometimes it can go to an extreme, but is not the character of the accuser as important as the character of the person being accused? If someone IS getting paid for interviews, and is in bad financial shape, people deserve to know that, as it MAY be a basis for her allegations, or to exaggerate something that did happen. If someone has accused others if 'inappropriate conduct' a few times before, is that not also important in determining the makeup of the accuser's statements? I guess i just want to know what you would have him do?

 

I'll preface this with.. I think Herman Cain is a joke. However here's how he should have handled it, in my opinion.

 

- Yes, nearly 2 decades ago there were allegations that I had behaved inappropriately with a few co-workers/employees of mine.

- I believed then, as I do today, that I did nothing wrong and that the allegations against me were false.

- We had determined, at that time as a business executive and not as a politican, that it was in our best interest to settle these matters without incurring lengthy court battles and legal costs.

- Had I known that more than 20 years later, these allegations would resurfice, and that I would become a politician seeking the highest office in the land, I would have chosen to fight these false claims at that time.

 

I'd also try to make an analogy, carefully, of someone who receives a ticket and decides to pay the fine, rather than go to court and fight it. (obviously the severaty of the claim is 1000x worse, but that's why I said carefully)

[EvilMonkey]

They do not have access to great legal counsel *and* people will discredit what they say based on their financial situation.

Gloria Allred, or however you spell her name. She doesn't work for free, so she got access somehow. And should we believe her MORE because she is poor?

 

And I just saw this on a blog, but can't find a direct link, will post here for you all to view. Now if this stuff is true, is it character assassination to point it out as a justification for debating the merits of her claim?

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

 

As Ms. Sharon Bialek has placed herself in the public spotlight through making patently false allegations against Herman Cain, it is only fair to compare her track record alongside Mr. Cain’s.

 

In stark contrast to Mr. Cain’s four decades spent climbing the corporate ladder rising to the level of CEO at multiple successful business enterprises, Ms. Bialek has taken a far different path.

 

The fact is that Ms. Bialek has had a long and troubled history, from the courts to personal finances – which may help explain why she has come forward 14 years after an alleged incident with Mr. Cain, powered by celebrity attorney and long term Democrat donor Gloria Allred.

 

In the courts, Ms. Bialek has had a lengthy record in the Cook County Court system over various civil lawsuits. The following cases on file in Cook County are:

 

· 2000-M1-707461 Defendant against Broadcare Management

 

· 2000-M1-714398 Defendant in lawsuit against Broadcare Management

 

· 2000-M1-701522 Defendant in lawsuit against Broadcare Management

 

· 2005-M1-111072 Defendant in lawsuit against Mr. Mark Beatovic.

 

· 2007-M1-189176 Defendant in lawsuit against Midland Funding.

 

· 2009-M1-158826 Defendant in lawsuit against Illinois Lending.

 

Ms. Bialek was also sued in 1999 over a paternity matter according to ABC 7 Chicago (WLS-TV). Source: WLS-TV, November 7, 2011

 

In personal finances, PACER (Federal Court) records show that Ms. Bialek has filed for bankruptcy in the Northern District of Illinois bankruptcy court in 1991 and 2001. The respective case numbers according to the PACER system are 1:01-bk-22664 and 1:91-bk-23273.

 

Ms. Bialek has worked for nine employers over the last seventeen years. Source: WLS-TV, November 7, 2011

 

Curiously, if Ms. Bialek had intended to take legal action, the statute of limitations would have passed a decade ago.

 

Which brings up the question of why she would make such reprehensible statements now?

 

The questions should be – who is financing her legal team, have any media agreed to pay for her story, and has she been offered employment for taking these actions

[EvilMonkey]

I'll preface this with.. I think Herman Cain is a joke. However here's how he should have handled it, in my opinion.

 

- Yes, nearly 2 decades ago there were allegations that I had behaved inappropriately with a few co-workers/employees of mine.

- I believed then, as I do today, that I did nothing wrong and that the allegations against me were false.

- We had determined, at that time as a business executive and not as a politican, that it was in our best interest to settle these matters without incurring lengthy court battles and legal costs.

- Had I known that more than 20 years later, these allegations would resurfice, and that I would become a politician seeking the highest office in the land, I would have chosen to fight these false claims at that time.

 

I'd also try to make an analogy, carefully, of someone who receives a ticket and decides to pay the fine, rather than go to court and fight it. (obviously the severaty of the claim is 1000x worse, but that's why I said carefully)

The coverup seems to always be worse than the crime.

[Balta1701]

Gloria Allred, or however you spell her name. She doesn't work for free, so she got access somehow. And should we believe her MORE because she is poor?

According to Ms. Allred's statement, she has taken this case pro bono.

[EvilMonkey]

According to Ms. Allred's statement, she has taken this case pro bono.

She still got access. Yah for the little people!